Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/166

162 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the change in the cap is also. But all the rest of the Thomas drier is substantially the same in form and operation as the Plumnaer one, and therefore an infringement upon the plaintiff's patent. �Upon the argument counsel for the defendants questioned the validity of the plaintiff's patent, on the ground that it lacks novelty. But the patent is pfima fac'ie evidence that the patentee is the in- ventor of the thing patented, and of the novelty and utility thereof. Curt. Pat. § 470 et seq.; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 538. �No attempt has been made to overeome this evidence of novelty, except by the introduction of patents for drying or preserving fruit or vegetables, as follows: Nos. 121,569, December 6, 1871 ; 121,795, December 12, 1871; 120,253, October 24, 1871; and 4,792, March 5, 1872. But all the machines described in these, except the last, are very different in form, operation, and mechanical contrivance from the PJummer drier; in particular, as they involve the use of machinery for exhausting or blowing the air into or from the machine. The last one does rely upon the natural tendency of heated air to move upwards, as the Plummer machine does, but its mechanism and contrivance appear much more oomplex and costly. �It appearing, then, that the Thomas machine, although in one respect an improvement upon the Plummer one, is in other respects an infringement upon it, and that the defendants are manufacturing and selling their machine for considerably less than the price of the Plummer one, and thereby preventing the sale of the plaintiff's machine, to its manifest injury, a provisional injunction will be allowed until the final hearing or, the further order of this court, upon giving l>ond in the sum of $2,000, with sureties, to the approval of the master. ���Cote and others v, Moffitt. �IGircuit Court,!). Massachusetts. July 2, 1881.) �Rb-issub No, 7,356— Boot and Shob Stiffbmno Machine — ANTiciPATioif — Validitt — Infbikgement. �Re-issued letters patent No. 7,356, granted October 24, 1876, to Loiiis Cote, for machinery for forming boot and shoe stiffeners, hdd,. not anticipated by letters patent No. 63,550, granted John R. Moffltt, April 2, 1867, for apparatus for molding and vulcanizing articles of rubber, aud letters patent No. 135,160, granted January 21, 1873, to John Pearce, for machine for bending sheet metal ; aiso, hdd tiaiid,, and infringed by machines constructed under letters patent No, 178,869, granted June 20, 1876, to John R. Moffitt, for procesa and machine for manufacturing counter-stiffeners for boots and shoes. ��� �